The Foundations of Spelling
It has been known for many years that there are no “born spellers”. Whilst some people may feel that they “cannot spell”, most can learn. The ability to spell relies heavily on teaching methods, so selecting the right approach is pivotal. It has been observed that one can identify avid childhood readers by their knowledge of many words they cannot pronounce. These individuals often spell quite effectively. Poor direct teaching is far worse than good incidental learning, but high-quality direct teaching surpasses simply reading.
Effective teaching relies on the four “images” of words: sight, sound, feeling when writing, and feeling when spoken. Research shows that sight is more important than hearing for spelling, as deaf children often outperform hearing children in this skill. Furthermore, the physical act of writing has been linked to higher results, making it more crucial than vision alone. The feeling when speaking contributes only marginally to spelling proficiency. Learning strategy is also significant; proficient learners tend to approach words holistically, whilst struggling learners may focus on small sections.
Personal Experiences with Spelling
I have never enjoyed spelling. As a child, I consistently failed my spelling tests. I was taught the rule, “i before e except after c”, only to then encounter words like seize, vein, weird, heist, their, feisty, foreign and protein. Spanish spelling also vexed me; I struggled to understand the purpose of accents on letters. Clearly, these rules are not universally applicable in Britain, and the teaching methods for foreign languages often assume the ambiguity present in English. Consequently, these nuances are rarely taught. Even now, I occasionally misspell “until” with two l’s.
Early Attempts at Spelling Reform
The need to address spelling is evident. The ambiguity has been a significant problem, recognised as such for centuries. In the 12th century, a monk named Orm (or Orrm) proposed reforms after noticing frequent mispronunciations of English. He suggested using doubled consonants to indicate a short preceding vowel, single consonants for long vowels, and accent marks for syllables ending in vowels. Orm also proposed different forms of the letter ‘g’: ᵹ for the palatal approximant, a flat-topped ꟑ for a velar stop, and ‘g’ for the palato-alveolar affricate.
Thomas Smith, in his “De recta et emendata linguæ angliæ scriptione”, advocated for adding θ to represent the voiceless dental fricative and ð for the voiced dental fricative. Charles Butler similarly suggested adding đ, writing, “men should write altogeđer according to đe sound now generally received”.
Simplification Efforts
Whilst these alterations generally involved expanding the language for greater clarity, others sought to reduce this bulk to save on paper, ink, and printing costs. James Howell, for instance, made several lasting changes. In his 1662 Grammar, he proposed minor spelling adjustments, responsible for amendments such as ‘logique’ to ‘logic’, ‘warre’ to ‘war’, ‘sinne’ to ‘sin’, ‘toune’ to ‘town’, and ‘tru’ to ‘true’. Noah Webster also advocated for simpler spellings in his dictionaries.
Notably, the letter Þ (thorn) was removed from the English language. This was largely because early printing typefaces originated from Romance-language speaking countries. Being a Germanic language, English printers lacked the thorn in their type sets, leading to its gradual replacement with “y” or “th”. Press operators were often unfamiliar with the symbol when locally made sets were used.
The Impact of Printing on Spelling
The reform of spellings in the UK was largely proliferated by the printing press. Many authors were either unaware of the reforms or actively opposed them. One book, in particular, demonstrated significant changes over time: “The English Schoolmaster”. This text is particularly useful for analysis as it contains lists of spellings for children to learn. Of the first 242 spellings, 93 words in the 1596 edition were not modern. By 1614, this number decreased to 88, and 16 years later, to 65. A subsequent version reduced non-modern spellings to 33, and the final version, released in 1696, contained only 21 non-modern spellings. The original author had passed away by this time, so these changes were made posthumously. One printer remarked on the reforms, “How much more easie and readie, it will be for the writer or printer”. This indicates that these reforms were intentional, gradually pushing English towards uniformity, though not immediately standardised.
Structure of Printing Houses
As the printing press was instrumental in effecting these changes, it is crucial to understand the structure of printing houses. They were led by a “master printer”, typically a wealthy owner who managed journeymen and apprentices. Apprentices, usually aged 14 or 15, often came from grammar schools and would serve for 5-7 years in unpaid positions, living in the master printer’s household. They performed routine tasks as described later. Journeymen, often itinerant, took on two primary roles: typesetters (or compositors) and pressmen. Typesetters organised metal types onto plates and bound them for printing, whilst pressmen oversaw the operation of the presses. Ideally, journeymen would remain employed by the house that oversaw their apprenticeship, but lack of job availability (and the lower cost of new apprentices) often necessitated travel for employment.
The frequent travel of journeymen, particularly compositors, contributed to the spread of regional differences in spelling. They tended to retain more traditional spellings compared to newer apprentices. Apprentices, often tasked with proofreading, were responsible for standardisation within the house. They might be assigned to a specific journeyman, in which case they would closely mimic that individual’s spellings. Apprentices also had to distribute “pie sorts” – mixed typefaces of different fonts and sizes. Reorganising these was a laborious task that took hours, and mistakenly creating these “pies” could result in fines for the journeymen. Despite the tedium, this process taught apprentices about available type pieces, allowing for more efficient work later. Using a three-letter piece, for instance, would save time compared to three smaller ones, especially since pay was performance-based. This efficiency drive often led to simpler spellings, though not necessarily shorter ones.
American English and Modern Reform Efforts
American English diverged rapidly from the standard British dialect. Words like “colour” were simplified to “color”. Efficiency-minded tycoons such as Andrew Carnegie became passionate about streamlining spelling (and life in general). This led to the financing of organisations like the Simplified Spelling Board. It was claimed that removing silent e’s would save 4% of all letters used, potentially condensing the Encyclopaedia Britannica from 24 volumes to just 20. The board produced a list of 300 reforms (e.g., changing “through” to “thru”). However, these could not be taught in schools due to a US Supreme Court ruling. Carnegie began to lose faith in these efforts when even his own foundation failed to adopt the changes. He came to believe that grassroots efforts would be more effective, allowing people to adapt unconsciously to new spellings. The board was dissolved on the very day their Handbook of Simplified Spelling was published.
In my opinion, this initiative failed because spelling was viewed as something that could be measured and optimised, irrespective of history. In reality, etymology, culture, and aesthetics play crucial roles in shaping our spellings.
Leave a Reply